I have avoided posting on this thread since the ordination of women is today relegated to protestants only. The subject for orthodox is mute in this life time.

So are you saying that by not talking about it, it will go away?

What is wrong about talking about issues? Isn't this a very stereotypically "catholic" way of approaching God and theology? By not talking about it? I thought that the Orthodox church was one of discussion and being open with one another.

But if people feel that they can find some "reasonable institution" to replace the church somebody should point out to them that they have jumped out of the pan and into the fire.

There is NO "reasonable institution" outside the Church.

Ah yes, the Church has a monopoly on reason? I dont think so...

There are many reasonable institutions outside the Church.

Quote

Also The Church does not "adapt".

We adapt to the Church.

If the Church is in a constant state of adapting than it is not orthodox. Orthodox means Correct doctrine. It has no place with adaptationist thinking (not that this is who you are). I find this thinking prevalent among protestants and other people who refuses to worship God in spirit and truth. People who want things their way. 'Arm chair Christians'. This type would prefer that communion be sent to them by Fedex.

Again I think i get what you are saying but I feel that we can not give in to people who are not willing to 'give in to the church'.

That's a nice little theory and it really makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...but it's inconsonant with the history and experience of the Church, time to wake up and deal with reality.

Quote

I have avoided posting on this thread since the ordination of women is today relegated to protestants only. The subject for orthodox is mute in this life time.

Not so, many bishops and theologians have come out saying that now is the time to begin discussing and considering the issue.

That's a nice little theory and it really makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...but it's inconsonant with the history and experience of the Church, time to wake up and deal with reality.

Not so, many bishops and theologians have come out saying that now is the time to begin discussing and considering the issue.

Yes!The Holy Church is the repository 'the keeper' of ALL reason and understanding in the universe. There is not any place on earth that possess more reason and understanding than the Christ' Holy Universal Church which today Orthodox in the Lord.

"History and experience of the Church"....Any history the church has is ours (human beings; sinners). And if there is any inconsistency anywhere it is with us (the churches devoted sinners). Sin is all we are truly capable of. We are very consistent at WITH sin. The Church is founded by God in Christ Jesus (who is perfect and consistent)our Lord and savior. If we follow His commandments, His pure word, His instruction in our lives we are rich in truth. And truth need no adjustment.

But of course we can not do that since we have so much smarts today.

Bishops in the west may be looking at this issue. Where ever this issue is being discussed I feel comfortable in saying that you or I will not see any women on any alters in our life time even if we live to be a million years old. It is talk for talks sake in my opinion.

A non-issue except for those who believe in spiritual and other kinds of evolution (Berdyaev et al). As St Jude says: "that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints". Since Pentecost (remember this Feast?) all has been revealed. The Most Holy Theotokos is our example of how a woman should be.

Bishops in the west may be looking at this issue. Where ever this issue is being discussed I feel comfortable in saying that you or I will not see any women on any alters in our life time even if we live to be a million years old. It is talk for talks sake in my opinion.

Want to put money on that one? There was a time when the exact same rhetoric was comming out of the Anglican Church...and look at those naysayers now, most have become schismatics.

Well, it could...with advancements in cloning technology, it's quite possible for a mother to have a child with no biological father and without sexual intercourse, entirely of her own genome. Perhaps this is what Christ truly wants us to strive for, an end to sexual reproduction and a procreation of the human race based on cloning and genetic engineering technology. I'm glad this discussion has lead to some sound ethical conclusions that we can all support for the good of science and for the advancement of the human race.

Well, it could...with advancements in cloning technology, it's quite possible for a mother to have a child with no biological father and without sexual intercourse, entirely of her own genome. Perhaps this is what Christ truly wants us to strive for, an end to sexual reproduction and a procreation of the human race based on cloning and genetic engineering technology. I'm glad this discussion has lead to some sound ethical conclusions that we can all support for the good of science and for the advancement of the human race.

I bet if all the men who think this would be a good idea realised that cloning to produce Virgin Motherhood can only produce female exact copies of the mother (since there is no Y chromosome), and thus, the male of our species would cease to exist, they'd stop applauding!

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I bet if all the men who think this would be a good idea realised that cloning to produce Virgin Motherhood can only produce female exact copies of the mother (since there is no Y chromosome), and thus, the male of our species would cease to exist, they'd stop applauding!

Ah, but we're slowly becomming more sophisticated in our ability to manipulate these eggs prior to gestation. In time I have no doubt that we could manipulate the dna to create male or female, or perhaps even an androgynous third gender that will include both male and female attributes and replace them both. Of course, this would deny us the evolutionary benifits of sexual reproduction, but if we're micromanaging our reproduction and changing it on a regular basis anyway, the evolutionary benifits would be of no consequence.

Well, heck, if we want to get technical and all, all the western churches are in schism. You may believe that I should look upon Rome with more favour than Canterbury...but I dont. In many ways the Anglicans corrected the uncanonically excesses of Rome, in other ways they probably went a bit too far.

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Well, heck, if we want to get technical and all, all the western churches are in schism. You may believe that I should look upon Rome with more favour than Canterbury...but I dont.

You seem to me a peculiar but amiable blend of theological modernism and parochially Greek Orthodoxy. So your view on Rome vs. Canterbury is not among my chief concerns.

(I assume one of those things you believe the Anglicans have done better is the "ordination" of priestesses? I suppose, in your view, the heretical Protestant groups seem to be more receptive of God's desire for priestesses and universal salvation. What does it say about Catholicism and Orthodoxy that both churches have been least receptive to these innovations?)

You seem to me a peculiar but amiable blend of theological modernism and parochially Greek Orthodoxy. So your view on Rome vs. Canterbury is not among my chief concerns.

Ah, but in this regard you'll probably find that most Orthodox agree with me.

Quote

(I assume one of those things you believe the Anglicans have done better is the "ordination" of priestesses? I suppose, in your view, the heretical Protestant groups seem to be more receptive of God's desire for priestesses and universal salvation. What does it say about Catholicism and Orthodoxy that both churches have been least receptive to these innovations?)

We'll we've been suffering for half a millennium under T**kish despotism, not the best context for doing theology and engaging culture. I don't know what Rome's excuse is.

Ah, Katharine Jefferts Schori. My favorite quotation of hers comes from an interview she gave with the New York Times last year:

"Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children."

Ummm, so what exactly is wrong with that quote, since I am assuming you mean that you like it sarcastically. Sounds true enough to me...and the two, more education and lower reproduction rates, are generally related.

'Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.' -- Mae West

(This has to be my most useful sig line yet.)

Boy, she should know. The last shock she delivered before her death was starring in a sex comedy called Sextette in 1978.

In this film she has all manner of young men, including Timothy Dalton, begging to go to bed with her rather plump 85-year-old body, while she delivers quips like "I'm the girl who works for Paramount all day, and Fox all night".

I have not yet been inflicted with this campy train wreck, but I hear it is a very popular cult film among gay audiences.

I wasn't laughing at the transsexual vicar (though it must be admitted she still looks like a man). I'm mature enough to not ridicule such things (though I don't think God made a mistake by giving her a male body).

I was laughing because I was not surprised to be seeing this in modern Anglicanism. It's so---preposterous and over the top. I've read other articles about vicars who are also practicing Buddhists. An Episcopal seminarian in California is known to be the founder and operator of a gay dating/hookup site. I laugh so as not to weep---it's sad to see the Anglican tradition, which I respect so much, turned into this. I have close Anglican friends who have been forced into schism by this celebration of deviancy and the social/cultural zeitgeist. They either must abandon their tradition for Catholicism or Orthodoxy or Evangelicalism, or they must depart from Communion with their historic but now spiritually dead churches. I feel bad for them.

I read my post over and over again and find that it can be seen as too vicious and insensitive particularly for a person in my station.

Sometimes I get lost in the moment. I did not mean it as a slur I assure you.

Of course there is no excuse.

Thank you for pointing this out.

I ask your forgiveness and anyone else that was negatively effected by my indiscretion.

Pray for me.

Amdetsion

We all get lost in the moment, and naturally I forgive you. But it's GIC you need to seek forgiveness from.

This is a very emotive subject and we all need to remember that. It's particular important to focus on the argument, not resort to slandering the person whose arguments we disagree with. [Putting the soap-box away again]

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

I wasn't laughing at the transsexual vicar (though it must be admitted she still looks like a man). I'm mature enough to not ridicule such things (though I don't think God made a mistake by giving her a male body).

I don't think it's a question of God "making a mistake", but things going wrong. And we know that in this fallen creation goes wrong. We don't know this person's circumstance and it's probably best not to feel anything but regret that they feel that they have had to make choices that we will never face. Whatever the circumstances, this is a person who has suffered; someone who needs our love and prayers. We are, none of us any different. We are all people in need of love and prayers, withever our faults and/or sins.

Quote

I was laughing because I was not surprised to be seeing this in modern Anglicanism. It's so---preposterous and over the top. I've read other articles about vicars who are also practicing Buddhists. An Episcopal seminarian in California is known to be the founder and operator of a gay dating/hookup site. I laugh so as not to weep---it's sad to see the Anglican tradition, which I respect so much, turned into this. I have close Anglican friends who have been forced into schism by this celebration of deviancy and the social/cultural zeitgeist. They either must abandon their tradition for Catholicism or Orthodoxy or Evangelicalism, or they must depart from Communion with their historic but now spiritually dead churches. I feel bad for them.

I feel bad about it too, seeing as I am one of those who has left Anglicanism. The funny thing is, that is was the ordination of women that was the last straw for me. However, even though I would have left Anglicanism for most of the reasons I did, I'm not sure that ordination of women is such a big issue for me these days. I tend to find the reasons for not ordaining women to be rather flimsy and suspect that they are based purely on patriarchal prejudice. What I do find particularly interesting is that the Judeaic/Graeco/Roman Christian Church was so instrumental in striping away women's rights within the Celtic world. What pagan Roman Imperialism began, the Church - taking on board that very same social outlook - completed.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

I don't think it's a question of God "making a mistake", but things going wrong. And we know that in this fallen creation goes wrong. We don't know this person's circumstance and it's probably best not to feel anything but regret that they feel that they have had to make choices that we will never face. Whatever the circumstances, this is a person who has suffered; someone who needs our love and prayers. We are, none of us any different. We are all people in need of love and prayers, withever our faults and/or sins.

Agreed; this troubled vicar certainly needs our prayers. What he doesn't need, however, is a bishop who accepts this gender confusion and body mutilation instead of seeing it as a serious impediment to sacerdotal ministry.

-

You're right that priestesses was the point of no return for Anglicanism.

You're right that priestesses was the point of no return for Anglicanism.

I don't see that Anglicanism is suffering ignomy because of the ordination of women, but of issues of a political nature that impacted upon the church; issues that were fueled by political feminism and the movement's subsequent demands for equal rights in all areas of life. I believe that the desire to serve God in the priesthood was overshadowed by that agenda.

Under the right circumstances, the ordination of women could be the right course. It could be that if the Anglican Church had already dealt with this issue and allowed the ordination of women as a natural prosess and human right, we wouldn't be looking at women in the priesthood in quite the same light. It's too easy to look at the Anglican Church and consider it a mess. But why is it a mess? Because of women priests? To say yes, is only to see part of the picture.

The problem within Anglicanism was that the ordination of women was a result of the increased impetus of political feminism. The all-male priesthood was seen as a final "bastion of sexist supremacy"; it had to be overcome. As a result, the priesthood became a "right to occupancy", rather than a calling. That sounds a general criticism of the motives of all women in the priesthood and I don't mean it to be. I am certain that there are many women priests who are very genuine in their desire to serve God.

Orthodox and Catholics could take a lesson from the situation within the Anglican Church, or they could ignore it and fall into the same trap. If the ordination of women is forced upon us by a political movement, rather than a spiritual one, we will have a situation where the accompanying agendum undermine the foundation of the Church, as they have within Anglicanism.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2007, 05:35:40 AM by Riddikulus »

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Orthodox and Catholics could take a lesson from the situation within the Anglican Church, or they could ignore it and fall into the same trap. If the ordination of women is forced upon us by a political movement, rather than a spiritual one, we will have a situation where the accompanying agendum undermine the foundation of the Church, as they have within Anglicanism.

This is something that is more likely to happen where there is a state church (or in the united states, for various other reasons, but that's another issue entirely), so it is quite possible that this could be seen within say Greece or Cyprus or even Russia, though the political situation there is a bit unsure now and we will only see for certain how it evolves with time. However, most the rest of the Church, specifically the Ancient Patriarchates, has a (recent) history of being at odds with the political establishment and it is unlikely that their decisions will be influenced by political agenda. Rather, what will most likely happen, and what is already happening, is that the future bishops, growing up in a culture influenced by the ideals of the enlightenment, it will simply become absurd not to ordain women...as at one point in our history it simply became absurd to deny women the right to vote. Revolutionary activity is not necessary to accomplish this goal, only honest and open discussion about the issue...our culture has already evolved, equality is no longer a political issue, it's simply the natural order of things, and it is only a matter of time before the proper understanding of the natural order permeates even the most patriarchal of institutions in western society.

There is no ordination of women that was adopted for reasons other than political feminism. The adoption of female ordination by Anglican churches was proof to the Christian world that for them, "experience" and politiical correctness had more weight than tradition, scripture, and revelation. The slope that followed was steeper and more slippery.

It's interesting that CS Lewis wrote an essay outlining the theological objections to this, back in the late 1940s when it was first proposed (and easily rejected):

To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation. . . .

Now it is surely the case that if all the supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion.

And Lewis was probably correct at his 'present moment', but thanks to the second world war and the political equality movements that followed the situation today is different than it was in the 40's. I'm a realist, I understand that there was a time when it was not prudent to ordain women, just as I accept slavery as a historical necessity. However, the reasons to oppose the introduction of the ordination of women in the 40's are moot today...today the scandal is continuing the sinful practice of discrimination against women within the Church.

And yes, there are reasons beyond the political to ordain women, there are the philosophical, social, cultural, theological, and humanitarian reasons.

And Lewis was probably correct at his 'present moment', but thanks to the second world war and the political equality movements that followed the situation today is different than it was in the 40's. I'm a realist, I understand that there was a time when it was not prudent to ordain women, just as I accept slavery as a historical necessity. However, the reasons to oppose the introduction of the ordination of women in the 40's are moot today...today the scandal is continuing the sinful practice of discrimination against women within the Church.

And yes, there are reasons beyond the political to ordain women, there are the philosophical, social, cultural, theological, and humanitarian reasons.

I understand your overall point. Your point in my opinion is not orthodox; but I get what you are trying to say.

I think your mentioning that slavery was at some point necessary is a very poor choice of comparison. I am sure you can't really mean that.

On the issue; The Holy Church has to obey the theological and spiritual roots of the fathers back our lord Jesus Christ on earth. Ordination is something that we except on the terms given us from the holy fathers the apostles. All sacraments are soemthing we are given by God not soemthing we create. Eve came out of Adams body she was not created seperately from the dust of the earth and the spirit of God like Adam was. The Church came out of Christs body, 'she' was not created seprately from earthy flesh and the spirit of God which Christ is.

So the Church is symbolic of these biblical truths which is the re-birth of Adam in Christ and the saving through grace of Adams generations till Christs second return.

The Church is women 'in' man. One flesh; which is Christs flesh. Christ taught "I am the Church and the Church is my bride".

AS such marriage is Holy among us, sacred. This sacrament like all other is the 'tone' of the fulfillment of Christ relationship in the Church of His body...His people. The sacrament can not change. As with all the remaining 6 because they are the 'tone' of Christ among us.

Ordination is not a men's club as our new age contemporary minds see it. It is order in the Church established by Christ with the Holy Spirit. The apostles taught "A Deacon or Bishop shall be the husband of one wife" (read First and second Timothy). This means a few things one of which is a married man can not address but one women as his wife; he can't have a "first wife" or "second wife" or "ex-wife". He can not have had a divorce and re-married if so he can not be a deacon or anything else in the Holy CHurch. A lay person in this situation can not take communion in some orthodox churches until very extensive penance or repair of the matter is completed.

This also teaches that a women are not to be "ordained" Deacon since she can not have a "wife" but has a husband. In many orthodox societies from the days of the apostles to now the wife of a clergy man was respected and treated with reverence and respect within the church. She was given much duty especially when her husband was away. Today in Ethiopia and I know also in Greece a Deacons wife OR priest wife has a special title. Her hand is not kissed but she is bowed to and asked "pray for me". This is a great honor. Her life must be like a deacon or priest...not a women of liesure and fashion, not a gossip or wearer of much jewlry and make-up. She is a women of natural beauty adorned on her by God. She is not loud but becoming; a strong support for the work of the church. I have found some deacon wives more beautiful in the faith than than some deacons.

People look at her and know immediately "her husband is clergy man"

These are just two point of Holy tradition which is the Orthodox Church.

Their is no biblical bases fro ordaining women.

This is not discrimination. This is the rule of God in His church. People outside the Church can do what they want to do. But us orthodox do not have that choice.

The left hand serves the body as well as the right hand, but only the head of the body decides for the whole body. That is not discrimination that is the rule of Nature.

Slavery is one will suppressing another 'will'. This is dysfunctional, in-organic, un-natural and is at the root of hate in the world today. The History and heritage of and entire nation of people were destroyed to build Americas so-called "free country" America is the symbol of racial hatred in the world to this day due to her bazaar and wicked 400 year industry of land grabbing and slavery.

The Head rules the whole body because the hand and all other body parts are designed to look for such rule as an example.

It is easy to question or challenge what we believe or believed. But is is a gross lack of faith to question what is the way of the Lord.

As I posted before we will never see a women deacon and therefore neither priest in the Holy Orthodox Church as long as true orthodoxy is held.

I think your mentioning that slavery was at some point necessary is a very poor choice of comparison. I am sure you can't really mean that.

I think you have misunderstood GiC's point. His argument is one of analogy: In ancient society, slavery was common, legal and generally regarded as acceptable. Because of this social and legal reality, the Church decreed that slaves could not be ordained as deacons or priests, since this would scandalize the people and upset their understanding of the natural order of things. In other words, since pretty much everyone would have responded negatively to the ordination of a slave, the Church decreed that such an ordination was not acceptable.

The Church's objection to such an ordination was not theological, but practical and pastoral (reflecting societal realities). As these societal realities changed, so too did the Church's practice. (And, thus, so too can its practice of not ordaining other "classes" of people.)

I'm sure GiC would say more, but that's at least minimally representative of his argument.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

I think you have misunderstood GiC's point. His argument is one of analogy: In ancient society, slavery was common, legal and generally regarded as acceptable. Because of this social and legal reality, the Church decreed that slaves could not be ordained as deacons or priests, since this would scandalize the people and upset their understanding of the natural order of things. In other words, since pretty much everyone would have responded negatively to the ordination of a slave, the Church decreed that such an ordination was not acceptable.

The Church's objection to such an ordination was not theological, but practical and pastoral (reflecting societal realities). As these societal realities changed, so too did the Church's practice. (And, thus, so too can its practice of not ordaining other "classes" of people.)

I'm sure GiC would say more, but that's at least minimally representative of his argument.

O.K.

But you are talking about people in the Church that made these changes. NOT the Church.

People are by nature sinful. ( I know I am)

The Church is not in our hand to change ( thank God) at our will because somebody will get mad or happy at the teachings.

When we make changes for this purpose we are rebelling.

You can imagine what orthodoxy would be like if changes to the Church were made so that every body was happy with everthing. I think the word "Protestant". What do you think?

The teachings of the Church are given by Christ and His apostles which are scripture.

Revolutionary activity is not necessary to accomplish this goal, only honest and open discussion about the issue...our culture has already evolved, equality is no longer a political issue, it's simply the natural order of things, and it is only a matter of time before the proper understanding of the natural order permeates even the most patriarchal of institutions in western society.

This, of course, would be the ideal way for the ordination of women to be established. From within the Church, rather than by some revolutionary means, with its accompanying agendum.

It's amazing how quickly changes can take place. When I look back over the past few decades, I see a very different picture than my Mother would have seen when she was my age. And if I imagine doing the same from my Grandmother's perspective, the situation for women is like night and day.

Honestly, I believe it's inevitable that women will be ordained, both in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches; though probably not in my life-time. I also believe that the Church can take this situation on board pragmatically and accept the change, or the Church can be emotive and resistant. The latter might postpone the change and make it an unpleasant affair, but it will not halt it.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

There is no ordination of women that was adopted for reasons other than political feminism. The adoption of female ordination by Anglican churches was proof to the Christian world that for them, "experience" and politiical correctness had more weight than tradition, scripture, and revelation. The slope that followed was steeper and more slippery.

It's interesting that CS Lewis wrote an essay outlining the theological objections to this, back in the late 1940s when it was first proposed (and easily rejected):

To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation. . . .

Now it is surely the case that if all the supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion.

And Lewis was probably correct at his 'present moment', but thanks to the second world war and the political equality movements that followed the situation today is different than it was in the 40's. I'm a realist, I understand that there was a time when it was not prudent to ordain women, just as I accept slavery as a historical necessity. However, the reasons to oppose the introduction of the ordination of women in the 40's are moot today...today the scandal is continuing the sinful practice of discrimination against women within the Church.

And yes, there are reasons beyond the political to ordain women, there are the philosophical, social, cultural, theological, and humanitarian reasons.

I agree. Unless the Church can establish more valid reasons, than it has to date, of why women shouldn't be ordained today, I see no reason to continue with a practice based on the archaic beliefs of a couple of millenia past, and a discriminatory situation created by Imperialistic Rome.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

002:010 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 002:011 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 002:012 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 002:013 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 002:014 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 002:015 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------003:001 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 003:002 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 003:003 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 003:004 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 003:005 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 003:006 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 003:007 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 003:008 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 003:009 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 003:010 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 003:011 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 003:012 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well

It appears that ordination is already well studied and decided as noted here in the Church. Anything else would be a break from Orthodoxy.

You mean of all times, including now, at least in your Church. Bringing the Church "up to date" carries the risk of making it out of date.

It is impossible for any man (or woman) to be a man (or woman) of all times. All of us are conditioned by the times in which we live. The situation for woman today is vastly different than it was in Lewis' time; mainly for the reasons that gic gives. And things simply aren't going to go back to the status quo ante bellum.

There are women who are every bit as suited to the role of priest as any man; perhaps more so in some cases. Why should they be excluded based on gender? If there are sound reasons, the Church must establish them; not turn to answers that are out-dated and irrelevant; answers that may be based on prejudice. This has nothing to do with "political correctness", but the right of women to hear a denial that is sensible and non-prejudical. It simply isn't good enough to give the flimsy reasons that have washed for the past couple of millenia. Such answers are not adequate for the modern, educated woman.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.